On April 15, 2015, plaintiff Wayne Clark, a golf professional, was fired from his position as the director of golf for Hidden Valley Lake Association, a homeowners association with approximately 3,300 members. Clark was hired as the director of golf by the prior general manager of the homeowners association, William Chapman, in 2011. At the end of the three-year contract, Chapman renewed Clark’s employment contract for another three-year term, to run from 2014 to 2017. In May 2014, Cindy Spears became the new general manager of Hidden Valley Lake Association. Almost a year later, on April 15, 2015, Spears terminated Clark’s contract pursuant to the “without cause” provision. However, Clark claimed that Spears “engaged in a course of conduct and action to impugn” his personal and professional reputation by conveying false information about him “to individuals that had no reason to know of it.” Clark claimed that Hidden Valley Lake Association, through Spears, made defamatory statements about him after his termination. Clark sued Hidden Valley Lake Association, alleging that the homeowners association’s actions constituted defamation, negligent supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, false light invasion of privacy, interference with prospective economic advantage and business relations, a violation of the California constitutional right to privacy, and violations of California Labor Code §§ 201 and 203. The matter ultimately continued on the claims of invasion of right to privacy, false light invasion of privacy, defamation (libel and slander), and negligent and intentional infliction of mental and emotional distress. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Hidden Valley Lake Association’s golf course became the subject of some debate within the community. According to an article that Clark wrote during his time as director of golf, Hidden Valley Lake Association residents fell into two camps: those who viewed the golf course as an amenity to be subsidized by the homeowners association, and those who thought the golf course should be a self-sustaining business that generated its own revenue. Counsel contended that as a result of the debate and Clark’s article, the homeowners association decided to terminate Clark, even though he had never been given a negative performance review. However, plaintiff’s counsel argued that since Clark was a popular employee of Hidden Valley Lake Association, Spears engaged in a course of action to impugn Clark’s personal and professional reputation in an attempt to justify his termination. Clark claimed that Spears made several untrue statements about him, including statements that he misused or embezzled Hidden Valley Lake Association funds, that he drank alcohol and watched pornography while working, and that he had pornography on his work computer. He also claimed Spears told others that he “was going to be arrested for criminal conduct and that he had engaged in fraud, dereliction of duties and theft.” In addition, Clark claimed that Spears told others that he “did not pay for food or drinks at the [Hidden Valley Lake Association] bar,” that his “employment contract was illegal and invalid,” and that he had been terminated “for cause.” Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Spears made the untrue statements about Clark to non-Hidden Valley Lake Association employees with the intent that they would gossip about Clark and publish the false information on social media, including Facebook and various blogs that several residents maintained. Counsel also contended that Spears made the statements to Hidden Valley Lake Association employees “that had no reason to know of such information.” Defense counsel contended that after Clark’s termination, Hidden Valley Lake Association staff cleaned out Clark’s desk at work and that they found that the desk contained, among other items, a roll of toilet paper, a bottle of alcohol, and “pictures of young girls wearing nearly[] see[-]through shirts, one of which contained writing that implied the photographed girl was under aged.” However, Clark claimed that the items were planted in his desk and that he had never seen those particular pictures before the filing of the defense’s motion., Clark claimed that he suffered humiliation, embarrassment, depression, and loss of enjoyment of life upon hearing of, and seeing, repeated defamatory claims on Facebook and other social media. He also claimed that he suffered from emotional distress as a result of being unable to find a job as a golf professional after 30 years of employment in such positions.